Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Multi core fad??

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Core
  • Overclocking
Last response: in Overclocking
Share

Multicore a fad??

Total: 94 votes

  • Yes
  • 13 %
  • No
  • 88 %
February 16, 2006 10:05:18 PM

alright its been about a year since the dualcores have arrived. and they are already talking about quad cores next year. my question is how the hell do they market that?

2 intel conroes are single core and if it's performance exceeds that of a mainstream pentium D that would be disastrous for marketing. so wat if they make a quad core.. theres bound to be a single version of it.. which will always be for the budget consumer. ie. most ppl in the world.

so wat do think bout my two cents?

More about : multi core fad

February 16, 2006 11:02:49 PM

Multi-core and dual core PC's on the desktop are the fasted chip ever available. It is no fad, it is here to stay and evolve to even more cores.
Actually, people have been using dual processor machines for AutoCAD and other graphic apps for many years, my first one was 8 years ago, and I have had a dual proc workstation every since which burned up the single CPU workstations.
February 16, 2006 11:07:29 PM

lol wat happens when a new single solution defeats a dualcore. which is reflected in the videocard world ie.x1900xt vs 2x 7800gt
Related resources
February 16, 2006 11:13:26 PM

Yeah, it must be a fad....
February 16, 2006 11:17:27 PM

I think that Multi-Core in desktops will reach a plateau. In the sense that after 2 or 4 cores, there will not be a need for desktop users. In Gaming, frames per second will be determined by Graphics cards, after all the Multi-Threaded games get released, and we see extra frames in games, I don't think that after getting 100FPS on 1600x1200 w/ 16x AA and 16x AF, we will really need to have these Quad-Core 3GHz CPU's.

I know users also do CAD, 3D Rendering, Photoshop, etc. I know we need performance there (Try Maya on a 2.6GHz P4, hideous site) but those users will not be the mainstream or hardcore gaming community, IMHO. I really think that Dual-Core or Quad-Core should be the stopping point for desktop users, and they should start focusing on getting prices down, perfecting the technologies, and creating fun programs to use these with. We all know it's so fun to stare at Photoshop for 3 hours at a picture, and playing the same game with the same lame story makes us giggle like school girls.

I think the big thing that will need Multi-Core technology is Servers. Servers need all the processing power they can get, especially with databases. Of course, this also means that the Opteron transition to DDR2 with 8-Way boards, using Quad-Core 3GHz Opties in there, 32 3GHz Optys....oh that's a devilish thought. That's my 2 cents.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time
February 16, 2006 11:21:57 PM

Quote:
lol wat happens when a new single solution defeats a dualcore. which is reflected in the videocard world ie.x1900xt vs 2x 7800gt


That is a lot less likely to happen with CPUs in the future, as software becomes more and more optimized for multiple threads running on multiple cores.

There is a reason why Sun Servers and indeed most high end servers and workstations have run multiple Processors for years. Putting more cores on one chip makes more sense though, since it saves on pagaing costs and improves inter-chip communications.

I a few years, I think Single cores will be a thing of the past. This is pretty much inevitable, since the level of complexity that software is reaching demands multiple threads to run concurrently.
February 16, 2006 11:24:53 PM

I don't think anytime in the next 6 to 8 years single cores will go away...
But like they are happening now, they will form the base for the budget and internet machines, being best for one task at a time.
The mainstream, gaming enthusiasts and high end will demand dual and quad cores.
February 17, 2006 12:01:41 AM

Its not a fad.

I think the only way single cores will go away is that the manufacturing tech would do away w/ them because of the relative smaller yield.
Why get rid of a product that will sell if you can still produce it?

We just haven't even realized that software is still mostly single threaded. Companies are making the transition, but don't expect multi thread support to appear until the next version or the one after that.

The only way I can see myself using a quad core is for video rendering.

But really, 2007 quad cores will be for servers, not desktops. I'm not gonna shell out for a quad. It'll probably be insanely expensive and so will the motherboard.
February 17, 2006 12:06:44 AM

Their here to stay and going to multiply.
February 17, 2006 12:08:45 AM

Some games that have dual core support...

Call of Duty 2
City of Villains, by NCSoft
F.E.A.R., by Vivendi
World of Warcraft
Age of Empires III
Black & White 2
Peter Jackson’s King Kong
The Movies
Battlefield 2
Battlefield 2: Special Forces
Tom Clancy’s Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter
Tom Clancy’s Rainbow Six 3
Tony Hawk’s American Wasteland
Quake 4
Quake 5 (when released)
Vangauard Saga of Heros

Probably every game released in 2006 and on will support dual core to some extent.

and I believe quite a bunch more are supported or fixing to get support via patch... so the list is growing, and any popular game in the planning is sure to have dual-core support.

Not to mention ATI's and nVidia's graphic drivers are multi-threaded giving an additional boost to dual core performance.

If you run anti-virus or software firewalls as a service, this is not an impact on speed, since they are multi-threaded and benifit from dual core also...

this is good news to dual core buyers and fluid-like gaming.

As far as commercial apps, they have had threading for many years. WindowsNT 4, WindowsNT 2000, WinXP, AutoCad, Photodraw, Video encoders, etc.
a c 102 à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
February 20, 2006 1:03:16 AM

I totally agree with you. Unless you run a computer than does nothing but crunch numbers, encode video, or run a bunch of virtualized OSes all day long (then the more cores the merrier!), there is a steep dropoff in performance gains per additional core once you pass 2 or four cores.

I would not buy a new computer with a single-core CPU, but I'd rather get a fast dual-core than a slower quad-core machine for general usage. You have that second core to help you along when there are lots of threads hogging CPU time, but for the most part, a fast CPU gives you the best performance.
February 20, 2006 1:21:52 AM

it's not a fad... there are definite performance gains... in multiple cores. The more the merrier :p  just consider this, is a single core 3.2Ghz gonna be faster than a 3.2Ghz dual core? I think that the dual core would be faster 8)
a c 102 à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
February 20, 2006 1:25:12 AM

The real question is: would a 3.0GHz dual-core or a 2.4GHz quad-core be faster? I think I can say offhand what will win 90% of the non-synthetic benchmarks.
February 20, 2006 4:08:47 AM

Quote:
The real question is: would a 3.0GHz dual-core or a 2.4GHz quad-core be faster? I think I can say offhand what will win 90% of the non-synthetic benchmarks.


Are you talking about Single threaded or multi-threaded apps? and in a single program or overall multi tasking? The answer will differ depending on your answers.
a b à CPUs
February 20, 2006 5:03:33 AM

Quote:
alright its been about a year since the dualcores have arrived. and they are already talking about quad cores next year. my question is how the hell do they market that?

2 intel conroes are single core and if it's performance exceeds that of a mainstream pentium D that would be disastrous for marketing. so wat if they make a quad core.. theres bound to be a single version of it.. which will always be for the budget consumer. ie. most ppl in the world.

so wat do think bout my two cents?


conroe is here to replace the P4 - the 65nm P4's are just a filler and an extremely overclockable one at that.

i had a dual celeron system (2x466) and in xp it felt like a P3 800

dual cpu is alright, quad is going too far i think (but on the other hand I have no use but others might)

quad core is more for servers and high performance workstations - cheaper to make a one socket motherboard supporting 4 cores, and high end servers with 4 sockets can then have 16 cores total etc.
February 20, 2006 11:08:29 AM

ok guys i think u kinda misinterpreted me. i meanted dual cores as opposed to the current generation of processors. say even the new single core conroes destoryed the x2s and PDs then wat will happen???
February 20, 2006 11:24:05 AM

Quote:
Some games that have dual core support...

Call of Duty 2
City of Villains, by NCSoft
F.E.A.R., by Vivendi
World of Warcraft
Age of Empires III
Black & White 2
Peter Jackson’s King Kong
The Movies
Battlefield 2
Battlefield 2: Special Forces
Tom Clancy’s Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter
Tom Clancy’s Rainbow Six 3
Tony Hawk’s American Wasteland
Quake 4
Quake 5 (when released)
Vangauard Saga of Heros

.


your list is SO far off.
battlefeild 2 does not use dual core.

the good news is that the nvidia drivers use the second core and you can pull a few more frames with a dual core.
February 20, 2006 11:33:37 AM

I'm pretty sure that cpu manufacturer is going to target the average consumer. So sometime in the future there will be a budget and high end multicore processors. That or they could find a way to manufacture cpu at cheaper cost.
a c 102 à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
February 20, 2006 12:07:17 PM

I am talking about application benchmarks, which are the most useful ones, IMO. Very little is multithreaded all the way out to four threads, so for the most part, the extra two cores will sit idle.

Synthetic benchies may say differently, but those also have the P4 killing the Athlon 64 in about every single one, and we all know which one is generally faster in real life.
February 20, 2006 12:15:06 PM

Quote:
Some games that have dual core support...

Call of Duty 2
City of Villains, by NCSoft
F.E.A.R., by Vivendi
World of Warcraft
Age of Empires III
Black & White 2
Peter Jackson’s King Kong
The Movies
Battlefield 2
Battlefield 2: Special Forces
Tom Clancy’s Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter
Tom Clancy’s Rainbow Six 3
Tony Hawk’s American Wasteland
Quake 4
Quake 5 (when released)
Vangauard Saga of Heros

quote]

Do ALL of these games REALLY support dual-core CPUs?
February 20, 2006 1:03:40 PM

Time and time again, I get amazed at how easily poeple make arguments based on the broadest statements out there on these boards.

First of all, what is all this talk about "destroying?!" What kind of benches are we talking here? A single-threaded Quake 3. Then the answer is "yes, go single core."

In order for multi-core processors to shine in application (vs. multi-tasking) performance, you need to have threaded applications. That transition (from single-threaded applications to multi-threaded) will determine the success of multi-cores. And it seems that this transition is well under way.

And as long as people can make four threaded applications, those will perform better on a quad-core than a dual core for obvious reasons. It's a different way of thinking, yes, and a different way of programming (that, among other things, makes for a somewhat difficult transition for developers). But once everybody adapts this new way (and again, like it or not, it appears that it's just a matter of time), multi-cores will stay and, like someone said, multiply.

The fact that some single cores outperform dual cores, is very simply attributable to 1) running of single threaded applications that are poorly suited to utilize all capabilities of a multi-core platform, and 2) the fact that due to power (and thermal) constraints, it is easier to package faster single cores on a chip when compared with multiple cores on the same package.

In terms of X1900 vs. 7800 SLI it is just a silly comparison. You are comparing different generations of processors, not to mention two different architectures. Your argument just does not make any sense. A more valid comparison would be 7800 GT SLI vs. 7800 GTX, or something. Even thought SLI is vastly different from multi-core...
February 20, 2006 4:35:41 PM

Quote:
I am talking about application benchmarks, which are the most useful ones, IMO. Very little is multithreaded all the way out to four threads, so for the most part, the extra two cores will sit idle.

Synthetic benchies may say differently, but those also have the P4 killing the Athlon 64 in about every single one, and we all know which one is generally faster in real life.


P4 3.0Ghz with HT is definitely faster and far more responsive than even a 3200... it's a whole lot snappier.
February 20, 2006 5:35:04 PM

"If you build it, they will come"

Anyone trying to claim that additional cores provide a diminishing return are neglecting the fact that they are using non-threaded apps to support their theories. As more cores are made available, more processes will find ways to use them. I have never seen a case where one of my cores was kept really busy while the other remained idle. The only times I have found both cores pegged was when a single app was misbehaving.

Video chips use multiple cores to process 3d. Pipes and shaders are all examples of how parallel can improve throughput. SLI and crossfire are further examples.

IBM put multiple helper cores on the CELL processor. Intels HyperThreading was similar to the helper cores. Ultimately, as the two main cpu designers try to find ways to make their chips outperform the competitors, the only things they can do is make them smaller, and make them more parallel. I think that we will eventually have more smaller helper cores like the CELL.

And as more cores land on our desktops, more programs (including games) will find uses for them. Physics modelling, natural language, AI, etc.
February 20, 2006 6:01:57 PM

Multicoring is NOT a fad. However, right now it pretty much sucks for gaming, considering the only truly multithreaded game is Quake4. When moving from the venice 2.8 to my friend's denmark 165 2.7 i have to say performance actually dropped on games (I didn't try Quake4, but FPS in FEAR/HL2 dropped)! I was extremely disappointed at this, and it shows how much effort will need to be put into development of optimized apps (amd64 anyone?) However, if you have 4 cores running at a 1ghz each, it should be able to crush a 3ghz cpu in a multithreaded app...in theory, that is.
February 21, 2006 2:29:18 AM

Quote:
I am talking about application benchmarks, which are the most useful ones, IMO. Very little is multithreaded all the way out to four threads, so for the most part, the extra two cores will sit idle.

Synthetic benchies may say differently, but those also have the P4 killing the Athlon 64 in about every single one, and we all know which one is generally faster in real life.


You are completely right At The Moment. Same as with 64 bit Processers. However, in the future, which determines Fad status, there will be more software that supports both multi-core (two, four, however many) and 64 bit processing than there is today. And, whether you go to 2 cores or four, they are still multi-cores.

Oracle is a non-synthetic app that is living prffo af that. I know it is a server app and nobody runs it at home, I am just making the point that you can find software to prove any point you want.

The right statistician can find numbers to prove any point he wants to make.
a c 102 à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
February 21, 2006 2:38:04 AM

Yes, I know I am talking about At The Moment. I know that the trends will change, and when they change, the hardware required to run it will be common and pretty inexpensive. (See DVD burners today versus a few years ago- they're about 1/3 to 1/5th as much.) All hardware that is a break from the incremental evolution is quite expensive and generally not even fully utilized until some later time. Also, the early adopters work the bugs out so the rest of us can come on in and get proven, reasonably-priced gear. Going with the DVD example, the early adopters had the +/- format war that was expensive, and now most any burner will do all formats. It can pay to buy for the present and near future and let the future take care of itself for some things.
February 21, 2006 2:42:59 AM

Quote:
Quote:
just making the point that you can find software to prove any point you want.

The right statistician can find numbers to prove any point he wants to make.

Find me software where VIA wins :D 
February 21, 2006 2:50:24 AM

Quote:
Quote:
just making the point that you can find software to prove any point you want.

The right statistician can find numbers to prove any point he wants to make.

Find me software where VIA wins :D 

You win. :?

I suck at statisitcs anyway.
February 21, 2006 2:51:23 AM

Exactly. That is why I said that I don't beleive multicores are a Fad. They will eventually win out.
February 21, 2006 4:03:39 AM

Quote:
alright its been about a year since the dualcores have arrived. and they are already talking about quad cores next year. my question is how the hell do they market that?

2 intel conroes are single core and if it's performance exceeds that of a mainstream pentium D that would be disastrous for marketing. so wat if they make a quad core.. theres bound to be a single version of it.. which will always be for the budget consumer. ie. most ppl in the world.

so wat do think bout my two cents?


Well INTEL doesn't make real integtrated dual core processors, AMD does.

Intel just sticks two processors on a pin board and deceive all that it is a dual core processor.

As far as dual core AMD they are the only way to go, for a while
until quatro arrive.
a c 102 à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
February 21, 2006 11:19:59 AM

Oh, I agree 100% that multicores are not a fad, either. I just think that there is a limit where the increase in number of cores does not yield much more in performance. Might that be 8 cores, 16, 32 cores? I don't know. So what I am really trying to say is that the manufacturers work on rasing clock speed, IPC, integer and FPU performance, memory bandwidth, reducing cache latency, etc. rather than just multiply the number of cores.
February 21, 2006 3:26:05 PM

Quote:
Oh, I agree 100% that multicores are not a fad, either. I just think that there is a limit where the increase in number of cores does not yield much more in performance. Might that be 8 cores, 16, 32 cores? I don't know. So what I am really trying to say is that the manufacturers work on rasing clock speed, IPC, integer and FPU performance, memory bandwidth, reducing cache latency, etc. rather than just multiply the number of cores.


Absolutely, that goes without saying. If I remeber right, multiple cores was just about always part of the A64 roadmap as well.
February 21, 2006 3:31:09 PM

No, I think that was only with Opteron. However, a unified bus structure allows for seriously lower latency and communication between cores that Intel simply doesn't have.
February 25, 2006 10:29:40 PM

Yes it's a fad. 80% of all the computer users in America will never need all the power of a dual core, let alone a quad core. But marketing is a funny thing. People will think they need multi core cpus, and pretty soon some bloatware will come along that will make that perceived need a reality. Honestly, does adobe reader really need to be 18 mb download? No. But it is b/c most people have so much cpu power and hard drive space that no one cares.

I surf the net, IM, type, and listen to mp3's on a 200 mhz MMX pentium box with 64 megs of ram and windows 98SE. It does everything that most "normal" folks ever do with their computer, yet those people would think that they need at least a Pentium 4 at 3+ Ghz to perform these tasks.
February 25, 2006 10:38:33 PM

just some advice; run FEAR on that.
February 25, 2006 10:55:21 PM

True, most normal people don't need them. However, there are a lot of people into high-end games, programming, productivity, and centralized home entertainment (think video and audio production along with HTPC). The apps almost demand dual core or more, and will continue to do so as they transition into multi-threaded apps. You will also see a larger perfromance increase in multi-threaded apps than you currently do in single threaded.
February 26, 2006 12:18:58 AM

If I were to game, do you REALLY think I would use that pc? :roll: Just b/c I'm using an old pc, doesn't mean I'm ignorant. I just sold my high performance rig this week (sempy 64 2800 on Tforce 6100 @ 2.5 Ghz), mainly b/c my wife's Dell 4500 can handle all the video capture/encoding duties fine (Northwood Celeron 2.0 ghz oc'ed to 2.66 Ghz). All I needed was a box to perform basic tasks on. You know, PRODUCTIVITY? This old pc was given to me from a friend, as I generally refurbish pc's and give them away to families with kids who need something to do their homework and surf the net on. This one is too slow for most people, so I decided I would use it for my needs. It works fine, and it's completely silent with a passive heatsink and a modern 60 gig hard drive.

Hergieburber: I agree 100%. I have (and had) some higher end boxes, but only b/c I actually needed the power. Gamers need their power in order to get their fix, and multimedia enthusiast need the power so things don't take days to encode. It's just that most folks, those who don't care about how computers work, generally have overkill systems based upon the tasks performed. They will hear propaganda about dual core cpus and feel that they need to upgrade. That's where the "fad" is found.
February 26, 2006 1:21:12 AM

True. In that respect, most people don't need anything more than a PIII. However, the high-end drives the market, so, just as Joe Average User is forced to get a Pentium 4, D, AMD64 etc now, they will be forced to upgrade to multi-core in the future.

Plus some common apps will become multi-theaded eventually. We see ithe same things with housing. you always fill up the space you have, even if you cen get by with less. Software will take advantage of the available capabilities in the future.

Thats why I don't think its a fad. Fad implies disappearing after a relatively brief period of time, and while we are still using silicon for our chips, I don't think we will see that.
February 26, 2006 1:47:16 AM

As scoobertscoobydoo said, that list is so far off.
The only 2 games on that list I know that actually receive performance increases with dual core processors are Quake 4 and Call of Duty 2.
February 26, 2006 3:22:39 PM

I had to respond to you and joefriday... I like having a high end box... because I like speed. It greatly cuts down my time on the computer, I don't waste as much time waiting for programs to open. Everything opens instantly for me, no waiting. I'm using a P4 530J 3.0Ghz Prescott w/ HTT overclocked to 3.27Ghz. In the future, I hope to upgrade to a Conroe/Smithfield, or a PD 950. You can really overclock those 65nm PD's.
February 27, 2006 10:44:01 PM

Intel would be absolutely delighted if the single core 'budget' Conroe (perhaps they will call it Core Celeron hehe) destroys 'Mainstream Pentium 'D's.

Pentium 4 is on its way out, its dead, good bye, processor history. The Conroe is intels future. If Single core Conroe does well, the dual core Conroe is going to be so much faster in multi threaded applications. (And alot of benchmarks are multithreaded).

Games will catch up sooner or later and use dual core, to run AI, and Physics engines on one core, and the main graphics rendering engine split between the other core, and the GPU's. Quad core no problem, use a core to do real time DTS24/96 surround sound encoding of special effects, even start splitting the main 3Dengine into additional threads could be done too. MMORPG's still use a cpu bound particle engine for 'magic spell' effects.

It will take time for programmers to 'learn' the best way to utilize the performance offered by multicore processors, but eventually it's likely it will be considered the norm.

Simple single core chips will still be ok for word processing, and web browsing, but even 'average' users will probably want dual cores or more sooner or later.
a b à CPUs
February 27, 2006 11:22:32 PM

Are the multi core cpu's a fad. No way! Here's another reason why...Intel for years marketed themselves as the speed king, SUPER GHZ=BEST CPU. Intel lost that race, not only by being 2nd to reach 1GHz, but also by not being able to hit 4GHz as they bragged they would in 2005. Methinks AMD realized the x86 architecture limitations and saw how the scenario was going to play out and leaped ahead to an almost obvious conclusion of multi core cpus. And even that was nothing new as servers have been multi core for years! Really tho, how fast was a cpu going to get before the rest of the computer hardware would be unable to take advantage of it. We see this now with Intels decision to keep the the north bridge/south bridge set up. AMD got smart and put the memory controller on the die and, two years later, memory speeds are just now catching up with DDR2.

Faced with the physical limitations of the x86 architecture and the physical limitations of the mobo connections, the only real way for cpu's to progress was to go multi core. As someone wrote, multi cpu machines have been around for years and anyone who has used them know the advantage of multi cores over a super fast single. Hell, I'm posting this using a dual opty machine! Since I went dually, I'll never want or use another single core machine again!
February 28, 2006 1:02:54 PM

it is a fad. Just like Pentium was sooo cool in 1995, MMX was all the rage in 1998, then Hyperthreading was the shiznit in 2002. You just weren't hip unless you had these things back when they were new and cutting edge. Now, all these things are just ho-hum and taken for granted. That, my friends, is a God-damn fad
February 28, 2006 1:41:17 PM

not a fad
February 28, 2006 1:43:51 PM

It's only a fad if you do it just to have one..
February 28, 2006 1:44:20 PM

Dual core is only a fad at the moment because most things don't utilize it.
But its not going away. Ever.

Now, that does not clarify whether it is necessary. Does the average consumer need a dual core processor? No. Will they ever take advantage of the speed of one? Most likely not. The fact is we've hit a point where the hardware is far more powerful than the software there is to use it with. The average consumer surfs the web, runs Office, and listens to music or watches video. Can you easily multitask those things with a regular processor and 1GB of RAM? Yes.

What is dual core good for? Encoding, editting, 3D Design, Games, and any other intensive application. Will a certain number of cores ever be too many for those things? No. The more cores you have the better. However that only applies if the software supports threads. Of course now that multi-threaded apps are becoming more common, once you get the software written to support two cores, it'll support 3, 4, 5, 6, etc. Just more hands to share in the workload.

I think the statement that for the average consumer, two cores will be more than enough is correct. The only reason they'll need more is because of companies who load their apps with crap no one will use and that just takes away from the actual function of it. Look at cell phones. God forbid they just make a damn phone that can make phone calls. Now we need digital cameras, text messaging, the internet, MP3 players, games, etc. And all that crap does is drain your battery faster. My biggest beef with Vista is going to be the increased system requirements. The only reason I have to upgrade is that DX10 is only going to be supported on Vista. Thats a shitty reason to pay $200 to upgrade your Operating System.

Oh and the Pentium D and the Netburst architecture is dead. Sure it has way more processing power than the average person will use, but Intel wrote it off when it saw what it had in the Pentium M.
February 28, 2006 1:52:18 PM

oefriday: you are one of the most shortsighted people on these boards, and that's quite an achievement.

You "high performance" rig?! try running Photoshop on that with any kind of high performance. Just because your interests run with browsing internet and listening to MP3's, tasks that, oh I don't know, a Treo could do nowadays, it is hardly an indication of what PCs are mainly used for (again, aside from your entertainment after you get home at 7 pm). With heavy multi-tasking, photo editing, video editing, sound work, and a multitude of other applications, demands grow. For most people on these boards, gaming is of primary concern.

In this instance, multi-cores are a little bit ahead of their time, but that is simply natural. In the normal world [before Vista], hardware drives the software, and not the other way around. There was no point in developing multi-threaded applications (even if Windows had the "capability" to do so) since it was generally more pain, and Windows scheduler is pretty lousy, so there was no gain, other than the theoretical supremacy of the resulting code.

Now, that the technology is available, you will see threaded applications (like those that have been running on multiprocessor workstations in the past), which will benefit tremendously from multiple cores.

In terms of games - those are some of the applications that lend themselves superbly to threading - physics, AI, graphics (already threaded, if you think about it - what is a GPU other than a specialized additional core? Just couldn’t package them together), sound. There are possibilities of threads within these major threads.

The point is, it is all about the availability of tools for developers, who will then utilize them.

And joefriday, the processors you named were the fastest in their day, that's why they were all the rage. Your comparison simply does not apply. Dual cores are, generally, clocked slower than their single core counterparts. It is not about speed, it is a different framework. It would help if you would give us examples that were relevant to the topic.
February 28, 2006 1:56:29 PM

Quote:
it is a fad. Just like Pentium was sooo cool in 1995, MMX was all the rage in 1998, then Hyperthreading was the shiznit in 2002. You just weren't hip unless you had these things back when they were new and cutting edge. Now, all these things are just ho-hum and taken for granted. That, my friends, is a God-damn fad


C'mon now, you can do better than that. Your own definition refutes your arguments. A fad implies a brief period of time. Yes, all those things were popular at their release, but they are all STILL AROUND. That means they aren't fads, they are lasting products. We will see the same thing with multi-core.

To put i it in perspective, look at cars. Are airbags a fad? how about fuel-injection or anti-lock brakes? Same concept.
February 28, 2006 2:40:37 PM

Quote:
it is a fad. Just like Pentium was sooo cool in 1995, MMX was all the rage in 1998, then Hyperthreading was the shiznit in 2002. You just weren't hip unless you had these things back when they were new and cutting edge. Now, all these things are just ho-hum and taken for granted. That, my friends, is a God-damn fad


C'mon now, you can do better than that. Your own definition refutes your arguments. A fad implies a brief period of time. Yes, all those things were popular at their release, but they are all STILL AROUND. That means they aren't fads, they are lasting products. We will see the same thing with multi-core.

To put i it in perspective, look at cars. Are airbags a fad? how about fuel-injection or anti-lock brakes? Same concept.

Taking old technology for granite is called "progress".
Don't expect dual core to go away, ever. Intel already has 45nm processors with 4 cores coming out next year.
February 28, 2006 2:53:38 PM

joefriday; Calling it a fad would indicate to me that you feel that multicore technology will eventualy disappear. This seems counter to the current and past trends amoung the hardware industry.

The trouble is its a chicken and egg sort of thing for the industry. Which do you bring to market first software or hardware? Trouble is you need both to achieve real success.

With greater power comes greater uses for the PC, perhaps in a few years people will actually use their computers for uses beyond surfing, e-mail and playing mp3's. You can do all of those things on a mianstream rig because we all didn't say; "were fine now" when we got ou 286's.

Multicore is here to stay and it will begin to spread to things like GPUs next since SLI is a cost effective, quick and very profitable way to bring mulicore like performance to the video subsystem. If you want to identify a fad then here it is...SLI.
      • 1 / 2
      • 2
      • Newest
!